The Rift now represents about 47 percent of all VR headset users on Steam, according to the survey, sneaking just past the Vive at about 45 percent. Microsoft's Windows Mixed Reality initiative, launched late last year, accounts for just over 5 percent of the VR users on the platform.

Further Reading

The Valve hardware survey is a self-selected voluntary sample of all Steam users and only detects VR headsets that are actively plugged in to the computer when the survey tool is run. Still, the rough parity between the two headsets is noteworthy given the Vive's use of the SteamVR standard, which Valve continues to update.

Further Reading

Overall, VR users still represent an incredibly tiny minority of all the PC gamers on Steam—just under 0.3 percent when Rift and Vive users are combined. That translates to just about 200,000 users with VR access among the 67 million monthly active users Steam reported as of August. PlayStation VR, by contrast, managed to sell two million units in just over a year, though it's hard to say how many of those units are still in active use.

Share this story

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

121 Reader Comments

It is a great technology but it in no way replaces normal gaming...at least for now.

For 1.5 years I've been using it almost daily, for 2-4 hours a night. In that time the only non-VR game I've sunk any appreciable time into is Monster Hunter World.So our anecdotes shall thus cancel out. :-P

I do wonder what the usage rate is for the PSVR. I picked one up at launch, and used it intermittently for a few months. It was a novelty that also brought some good times (family game night with Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes is a fun time).

I recently, on a whim, picked up Skyrim VR and have been playing it obsessively. I think a lot of it boils down to gamer preferences. I'd prefer an immersive game and environment to "OMG wow look at the pretties!" I'm like that outside of the VR space and within. Skyrim VR certainly doesn't LOOK stellar, but within 10-15 minutes of playing I hardly notice. For me, the scope and sheer size of the world in VR has brought a whole new dimension to the game. Everything just feels... larger than life. Additionally, specific to Skyrim VR, object permanence and Move Controllers add something interesting to the game. The ability to loot a chest while watching around for someone seeing you, the ability to cast spells in different directions: things like this really make an open world RPG a great target for VR.

In the end, I hope the VR light doesn't fade - but it doesn't seem as if it is. Sales need to continue to grow, even if slowly, and games need to keep breaking barriers. NES-teenage-me is in love with modern VR tech.

I really don't think the VR light will fade. It's so early now, and there's no uniformity and so much prototypical competition. It will grow and mature and stabilize. Games will certainly drive continued VR development, but one huge industry that will guarantee VR success, not touched upon yet in this thread, is pornography. Gamers are a very small population in comparison to people who enjoy porn. Once non-gamer common Joes and Janes start experiencing VR porn, BOOM! VR will proliferate.

It's been a known problem for ages that females have more difficulty distinguishing depth in various types of 3D games, like platformers or shooters.

None of the linked articles say what you’re saying they say, and they’re all speculative. My theory is: Proponents of VR keep trying to play down the nausea effects and people keep trying to rationalize their experience (nausea) not matching what they’ve been told to expect (nausea is not a big problem).

Two of the articles above are female authors basically saying “Nausea seems to be a big problem, maybe it’s because VR hasn’t been tested with enough females.”

Equally likely nausea is just a bigger problem than VR proponents like to admit. I’ve read a number of reviews from male authors who say “I’m in the unlucky few who feel sick while using VR” which is just a different rationalization of the same problem.

VR's still got a ways to go. OR did indeed get a price reduction, but you still need $400 for the headset as well as an $900+ PC to run it at a decent clip (probably more now that GPUs capable of VR are prohibitively expensive). Plus, despite more and more influxes of software, there's still not a serious killer app yet, as the PSVR stats show, since most of the 2million who bought it aren't using it much.

Skyrim and fallout VR could be there but it seems like the experience is too difficult since the games weren't made for VR. But when you get a good AAA game that works well in VR, you will see it take off.

It's been a known problem for ages that females have more difficulty distinguishing depth in various types of 3D games, like platformers or shooters.

None of the linked articles say what you’re saying they say, and they’re all speculative. My theory is: Proponents of VR keep trying to play down the nausea effects and people keep trying to rationalize their experience (nausea) not matching what they’ve been told to expect (nausea is not a big problem).

Two of the articles above are female authors basically saying “Nausea seems to be a big problem, maybe it’s because VR hasn’t been tested with enough females.”

Equally likely nausea is just a bigger problem than VR proponents like to admit. I’ve read a number of reviews from male authors who say “I’m in the unlucky few who feel sick while using VR” which is just a different rationalization of the same problem.

I've had a number of people try my Vive. No one has reported VR sickness. I don't think we're downplaying the problem -we're collectively reporting that it just hasn't been a big problem for us.

A long time ago I got an Oculus DK1. Back then, games weren't optimized properly to eliminate VR sickness. And yes, I got sick several times and eventually stopped using it entirely.

VR's still got a ways to go. OR did indeed get a price reduction, but you still need $400 for the headset as well as an $900+ PC to run it at a decent clip (probably more now that GPUs capable of VR are prohibitively expensive). Plus, despite more and more influxes of software, there's still not a serious killer app yet, as the PSVR stats show, since most of the 2million who bought it aren't using it much.

Skyrim and fallout VR could be there but it seems like the experience is too difficult since the games weren't made for VR. But when you get a good AAA game that works well in VR, you will see it take off.

I want VR to thrive but even if it doesn't in the long run I think its still compelling to get one of these. I'm itching to play Elite Dangerous and a few other games in VR and I'm sure there are already several other VR experiences that are well worth experiencing at least once even if VR fails to become mainstream.

VR's still got a ways to go. OR did indeed get a price reduction, but you still need $400 for the headset as well as an $900+ PC to run it at a decent clip (probably more now that GPUs capable of VR are prohibitively expensive). Plus, despite more and more influxes of software, there's still not a serious killer app yet, as the PSVR stats show, since most of the 2million who bought it aren't using it much.

Skyrim and fallout VR could be there but it seems like the experience is too difficult since the games weren't made for VR. But when you get a good AAA game that works well in VR, you will see it take off.

I want VR to thrive but even if it doesn't in the long run I think its still compelling to get one of these. I'm itching to play Elite Dangerous and a few other games in VR and I'm sure there are already several other VR experiences that are well worth experiencing at least once even if VR fails to become mainstream.

A couple of must experience things:

Rec Room - it's free! It's a bunch of mini games (Paintball, disc golf, sword quests etc) that you do with other people. The controls feel very natural. For example, to party up with someone, you bump fists. To become friends, you shake hands. If you can see it in the world, you can likely interact with it.

Big Screen VR - Share your screen with others in a theater or living room or other settings. Your computer monitor will float in front of you, but also you can "project" it on the big screen. Great for watching movies with friends, playing games, or collaborating on the computer.

VR's still got a ways to go. OR did indeed get a price reduction, but you still need $400 for the headset as well as an $900+ PC to run it at a decent clip (probably more now that GPUs capable of VR are prohibitively expensive). Plus, despite more and more influxes of software, there's still not a serious killer app yet, as the PSVR stats show, since most of the 2million who bought it aren't using it much.

My killer apps: iRacing and Elite Dangerous. Absolutely incredible.

There are several very good shorter experiences as well, Lone Echo, Super Hot VR, Robo Recall.

I recently purchased a HTC Vive to use primarily with Elite Dangerous. While not disappointed with it, I am vastly annoyed/amused(?) that due to the so-called screen door effect, my Commander is now as near-sighted as I am in real life. I need to lean toward the control panels to read the text on some of them. This can become very annoying at times. (It makes me feel like I need to put my glasses on, and I'm already wearing them...)

Steam recommends a GTX-1070. Integrated graphics will work with Microsoft compatible VR headsets in MS's VR home. MS recommends a GTX-1050 for anything else. So go with the GTX-1070 minimum and have it covered, if you can find one...

Happy Oculus user here. My wife bought me Elite Dangerous and a Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS setup for my birthday in 2016. I spent so much time lost in the game that she decided the best way to bring me back was to get me an Oculus for Christmas, 2016. Uh oh. I bought the touch controllers (at the time they were $199 stand-alone, but I got them for $99 on a sale before the whole thing got price slashed) maybe 6 months later.

Now, I do go 3 months without using it once.. but then one weekend, I'll wake up early and get lost in the cosmos again for 12 hours with a headset strapped to my face, and it makes every single penny worth it.

For me it was and is a transformative, unreal experience that never ceases to thrill me, but I also don't use it every time I decide to play. The biggest reason for that is giving up my dual monitor setup, which is very nice for downtime in games, or for games like Elite that work better with a lot of side web lookups and spreadsheets and such.

It's definitely expensive, and my GTX970 is beginning to feel its age a bit, but every single one of those hundreds of thousands of pennies has been worth it.

My mother-in-law came over and while we were waiting on dinner in the oven, I put her in the seat and showed her the VR demo from Oculus, then I put her out into the galaxy in Elite. She cried. She just cried and looked around the ship and the stars for 10 minutes before I even pushed the throttle or moved the ship. That was over a year ago and she still talks about it as one of the most amazing things she's ever seen every time I talk to her.

Steam recommends a GTX-1070. Integrated graphics will work with Microsoft compatible VR headsets in MS's VR home. MS recommends a GTX-1050 for anything else. So go with the GTX-1070 minimum and have it covered, if you can find one...

Steam recommends GTX 1070 for what? HTC recommends a 1060 for the Vive. Oculus recommends at least a 1050 Ti for the Rift. I use a 1060 in a laptop with the Vive and it works great. Can't really tell the difference between that and the 1070 in my desktop.

It is all about the price stupid. I really expected the Vive to match the Rift in price. If they don't have any plans to get to $400 well they might as well just close up shop. $400 vs $600 for roughly the same experience? Doesn't take a marketing genius to realize the former is going to massively outsell the later.

Prices need to go even lower but that isn't going to happen if Vive can't even catch up. Would be nice to see both at sub $300 by holiday season this year.

Why not get a windows VR headset? They were down to $200 during the holidays.

And they're arguably just as good as Vive and OR if you discount some of the gimmicky motion control titles... and their motion controls arent that bad either.

My main issue is the screen door effect in all the VR headsets... so damn annoying.

I do wonder what the usage rate is for the PSVR. I picked one up at launch, and used it intermittently for a few months. It was a novelty that also brought some good times (family game night with Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes is a fun time).

I recently, on a whim, picked up Skyrim VR and have been playing it obsessively. I think a lot of it boils down to gamer preferences. I'd prefer an immersive game and environment to "OMG wow look at the pretties!" I'm like that outside of the VR space and within. Skyrim VR certainly doesn't LOOK stellar, but within 10-15 minutes of playing I hardly notice. For me, the scope and sheer size of the world in VR has brought a whole new dimension to the game. Everything just feels... larger than life. Additionally, specific to Skyrim VR, object permanence and Move Controllers add something interesting to the game. The ability to loot a chest while watching around for someone seeing you, the ability to cast spells in different directions: things like this really make an open world RPG a great target for VR.

In the end, I hope the VR light doesn't fade - but it doesn't seem as if it is. Sales need to continue to grow, even if slowly, and games need to keep breaking barriers. NES-teenage-me is in love with modern VR tech.

How do those giant spiders feel rushing your down? I opted out of Skyrim VR just because I knew I couldn't handle that. I also realized that using VR is setting myself up for endless jump scares that weren't actually designed to be jump scares.

Haha, there have been a few jump-scare scenarios, but it adds a certain "realism" (for lack of a better word) to the gameplay. The object permanence is definitely the biggest thing. For instance, it exists in the standard controller version of the game, obviously, and a giant spider behind you will still kill you... but you can't FIGHT it while it's behind you. In VR, you absolutely can - shoot one spell or use your sword in front of you, fling another spell behind you without looking. I'm still pretty early in the game (maybe... 8-10 hours) and have already seen this in combat, theft, and general interaction. Running through the woods and grabbing reagents without stopping (or turning toward them) is fun. Using the Move controllers for archery while on horseback is crazy.

VR's still got a ways to go. OR did indeed get a price reduction, but you still need $400 for the headset as well as an $900+ PC to run it at a decent clip (probably more now that GPUs capable of VR are prohibitively expensive). Plus, despite more and more influxes of software, there's still not a serious killer app yet, as the PSVR stats show, since most of the 2million who bought it aren't using it much.

My killer apps: iRacing and Elite Dangerous. Absolutely incredible.

There are several very good shorter experiences as well, Lone Echo, Super Hot VR, Robo Recall.

I recently purchased a HTC Vive to use primarily with Elite Dangerous. While not disappointed with it, I am vastly annoyed/amused(?) that due to the so-called screen door effect, my Commander is now as near-sighted as I am in real life. I need to lean toward the control panels to read the text on some of them. This can become very annoying at times. (It makes me feel like I need to put my glasses on, and I'm already wearing them...)

Yeh, its certainly fuzzy compared to a monitor, but everything should be clear enough to read with out thinking much about it. Look into the graphics settings and play with the antialiasing settings and using a resolution multiplier like 1.2 or 1.5 to sharpen things up. Also, at least with the Rift, its fairly sensitive about how the headset is centered and angled toward your eyes. If its gets off, things will be blurrier. In fact, i often look at text as the test to optimize its positioning when i start playing.

Oh and also make sure the lenses are clean. I use a photography lense brush to brush them off every so often and use a lense cleaner and microfiber lense cloth to clean them pretty often.

1) Space - This is the number 1 reason I can't play very much room scale VR. Space in my home is a premium and I can't just kick everyone out of the room my PC is in to play room scale VR. This limits the actual time you can use room scale VR to when you are alone.

2) Fatigue - The number 2 reason VR gaming will only ever be a niche is that neck and back fatigue begin to set in after about an hour. Granted your mileage will vary but for a typical 30 or 40 year old, you get about an hour of gaming before you have to take a break.

It's been a known problem for ages that females have more difficulty distinguishing depth in various types of 3D games, like platformers or shooters.

None of the linked articles say what you’re saying they say, and they’re all speculative. My theory is: Proponents of VR keep trying to play down the nausea effects and people keep trying to rationalize their experience (nausea) not matching what they’ve been told to expect (nausea is not a big problem).

Two of the articles above are female authors basically saying “Nausea seems to be a big problem, maybe it’s because VR hasn’t been tested with enough females.”

Equally likely nausea is just a bigger problem than VR proponents like to admit. I’ve read a number of reviews from male authors who say “I’m in the unlucky few who feel sick while using VR” which is just a different rationalization of the same problem.

So you're just going to pan the whole idea of differences in male and female depth perception because you think everyone gets equally nauseous?

Why did hunter gatherer societies exist in the first place? Why couldn't men and women just perform the same tasks with the same results across the board?

We know for a fact that women are underrepresented in tech companies across the globe. Why is it so hard to believe that this is leading to problems in adapting technology to the needs of women?

Why did hunter gatherer societies exist in the first place? Why couldn't men and women just perform the same tasks with the same results across the board?

Hunting is dangerous. Females were more valuable than males given they are the only ones that can give birth and feed infants and thus it wouldn't make sense to risk them in a dangerous activity. You seem to be messing up cause and effect. It was because males were the hunters that good depth perception would be a trait subject to natural selection. Hunters with bad depth perception were more likely to die and thus not pass on their genes.

Is it possible that women are more affected by nausea in VR? Maybe but the articles you posted to were not studies. Show a scientific study with a deviation in effect if you want a better response from a science related forum.

* The field of view needs to be wider* The weight needs to be lowered* The Fresnel lenses need to go* The headset needs to work well with glasses* Inside-out tracking needs to be less glitchy* Either the wires need to go away or everyone needs to adopt Microsoft's 1/8th turn navigation; ideally both.

Plus, despite more and more influxes of software, there's still not a serious killer app yet, as the PSVR stats show, since most of the 2million who bought it aren't using it much.

I've been playing around with a PSVR that I borrowed from a friend for about a week now, and while I mostly agree with you - when it comes to killer apps, RE7 is almost it. That game is just so unbelievably good. Sure, the resolution is not what one would prefer, but as the base game has an inherent "dirty" look to it, it doesn't matter that much. It's just awesome.

That is to say, while there are obvious technical shortcomings in VR offerings as of today (and even moreso with PSVR), the type of game makes a difference too. RE7 shows a proper game can be done (and be bloody terrific at it), more games should just think how to adjust themselves to VR properly.

VR headsets tend to make female gamers nauseous, so I'd say that's a pretty big blocker for widespread adoption of these devices. None of these companies seem to care that depth perception differs depending on your hormones, and all these headsets seem to be geared more toward men.

Edit: What's with the downvotes? Just ask any transgender about how their depth perception changed after taking HRT.

Do you have anything scientific to add or simply anecdotal evidence? The hunter-gatherer hypothesis has born fruit with regards to men and women having different visual perceptions, but these are not hormone-based and vary due to development of the optic cortex and optical structures within the eyes. They do impact things like visual differentiation of hues and shades, as well as discerning patterns from rapidly moving objects, though I've not seen anything with regards to depth perception.

Additionally, with only the anecdotal evidence from transgendered folks taking hormone treatments, it's also plausible that hormone treatments in combination with existing genetic differences from their birth sex may have unstudied repercussions to visual stimulus.

It's been a known problem for ages that females have more difficulty distinguishing depth in various types of 3D games, like platformers or shooters. It's because female depth perception relies more on shadows, while male depth perception relies more on the parallax effect.

Ugh...

Look, I know this may come off as pedantic, and I apologize in advance, but there's a lot going on here.

Hyperbole of "a known problem for ages" aside (because we've had decades of research into depth perception in 3D games, right?), the linked articles are... not entirely convincing. I'm not saying it isn't plausible that men and women react differently to them, but let's look at a few things:

1. All four articles refer to VR tech as "sexist" right in the headlines. That's both hyperbole AND disingenuous. That's like saying larger spoons are themselves sexist because women tend to have smaller mouths (I don't know if this is true or not, simply an off-the-cuff example).

2. There's discussion of things like platforming in non-VR games and women missing jumps. Does this account for sex variations in spatial recognition on the whole? What is the margin of error on this and how large is the dataset?

3. In the second article, in the takeaways for common folk, Stoeffregen lists #1 as: "Interactive technologies make people sick." That's a pretty big stretch. Maybe it's simplified for the article, but again, that's not a scientific analysis, that's an opinion at best.

4. The one article talks about women's versions of products, but there are just as many articles (by women) that bemoan attempts to market and target women for other stuff.

5. The fourth article was identical to the first article. Which indicates to me that you pulled the first few links from Google that matched your particular criteria.

Again, I'm not saying it's implausible that there are differences. But we begin to run afoul of other "sexist" situations. If the issue with VR is, at it's core, and issue with depth-perception, is there a solution, e.g. - is it possible to have VR that would significantly lower the impact of motion sickness in women? If it is possible, can it be done in the same headset that works currently or would it impede functionality for many men in doing so (meaning you'd need a M and F version of each piece of hardware, potentially utilizing different tech). If you need different tech, what is the market - how many women, as compared to men do or would buy a VR headset if they could use it comfortably. If the lion's share of the market is going to be men, it may not be a sensible business decision for most companies to also develop and manufacture a "female-compatible" headset. And this is the crux of "product sexism" - sometimes it's simple business math.

In the end, I'd love to see a study with a much larger basis conducted on various technologies, both VR and secondary techs, to see what the root cause of the issue is. Since even the hunter-gatherer hypothesis hasn't been fully proven out, and the underlying mechanics are still be studies after many, many years, it might be difficult with our current knowledge base to suss out what's actually occurring (we don't know what we don't know).

We know for a fact that women are underrepresented in tech companies across the globe. Why is it so hard to believe that this is leading to problems in adapting technology to the needs of women?

This, however, I agree with wholeheartedly. And it's also part of the problem. If men and women have distinctly different experiences with a technology, but the engineers are mostly men, and the testers are mostly men, and the sales folk are mostly men (and the consumer are mostly men), it's a very difficult issue to address.

What we need are more female engineers. More female programmers. More female testers. And definitely more women, generally, in tech industries. I've urged my daughter to consider tech for many years. She, instead, much prefers art and music. So, perhaps if you have a daughter, you can urge HER toward STEM. Obviously our daughters (and sons) doing what makes them happy is the most important thing. I'd just really love to see STEM make more of our daughters happy and excited. :-/

* The field of view needs to be wider* The weight needs to be lowered* The Fresnel lenses need to go* The headset needs to work well with glasses* Inside-out tracking needs to be less glitch* Either the wires need to go away or everyone needs to adopt Microsoft's 1/8th turn navigation; ideally both.

All of those are certainly welcome, and will aid in mass adoption. But even as they are now, it's an extremely compelling experience. If you have the space for it, have the interest in it, and have the necessary hardware, and some disposable income, it's definitely worth consideration in the current generation.

It's a problem of not having enough female testers in the first place. Thanks for being lazy.

Clearly you are also lazy - did you read the study you Google-pasted here? Hell, the abstract alone even says:

"Because of the irregular performance of our subjects, it is difficult to determine what individual variation exists and whether it was controlled by experience, social influences, or biological factors."

Additionally, the article was a thesis for a B.A. student. Not to detract from under-graduate research, but that isn't exactly going to be published in a journal anytime ever.

You seriously are just Googling articles to link into your comments, aren't you?

1) Space - This is the number 1 reason I can't play very much room scale VR. Space in my home is a premium and I can't just kick everyone out of the room my PC is in to play room scale VR. This limits the actual time you can use room scale VR to when you are alone.

2) Fatigue - The number 2 reason VR gaming will only ever be a niche is that neck and back fatigue begin to set in after about an hour. Granted your mileage will vary but for a typical 30 or 40 year old, you get about an hour of gaming before you have to take a break.

I wonder how much #2 depends on the game. I'm 41 and in a slightly round shape (I work in Software R&D and am fairly lazy). I can play a VR game for hours at a time without issue. With the exception of a few games that have given even me slight motion sickness, I haven't found another physical hard stopping point. YMMV.

VR's still got a ways to go. OR did indeed get a price reduction, but you still need $400 for the headset as well as an $900+ PC to run it at a decent clip (probably more now that GPUs capable of VR are prohibitively expensive). Plus, despite more and more influxes of software, there's still not a serious killer app yet, as the PSVR stats show, since most of the 2million who bought it aren't using it much.

Skyrim and fallout VR could be there but it seems like the experience is too difficult since the games weren't made for VR. But when you get a good AAA game that works well in VR, you will see it take off.

Skyrim works surprisingly well (my favorite VR game thus far). Really, I think most first-person experiences would work unless they already have really crappy camera angles. Assuming the camera angle "feels" roughly at eye level for a humanoid character, there's not much reason any 3D world can't be moved to VR.

Games will certainly drive continued VR development, but one huge industry that will guarantee VR success, not touched upon yet in this thread, is pornography. Gamers are a very small population in comparison to people who enjoy porn. Once non-gamer common Joes and Janes start experiencing VR porn, BOOM! VR will proliferate.

It's a problem of not having enough female testers in the first place. Thanks for being lazy.

So...your conclusion is based on the call for more studies? That's not a solid foundation for your claims. Asking for a study about the correlation of incidences cancer to the number of ethernet cables in your home doesn't automatically mean ethernet cables cause cancer.

When the HTC Vive launched in 2016, one of its major advantages over the competition was supposed to be its integration with the Steam platform through Valve's SteamVR standard.

And as long as you checked the option to allow other software in the Rift app, so was the OR. Steam even included handy little icons (Triangle for Vive/Rift Touch later on, the Rift oval for just Rift) for which games were compatible with your headset.

GPU costs/requirements keep me away from VR. I was even going to try it a month or so ago with Windows MR headset, but didn't work due to incompatable USB 3 chipset. Basically, there are too many hardware issues, along with the costs, that keep it from wide-spread adoption.

I'm assuming you were looking into getting a Rift? I ran into this, and had to buy a USB3 add in card that had a controller that would play nice with my Rift, However my Vive (Yes... I have both a Rift and a Vive) had zero issues on my built in USB controller. AFAIK this is a Rift only issue.

VR's still got a ways to go. OR did indeed get a price reduction, but you still need $400 for the headset as well as an $900+ PC to run it at a decent clip (probably more now that GPUs capable of VR are prohibitively expensive). Plus, despite more and more influxes of software, there's still not a serious killer app yet, as the PSVR stats show, since most of the 2million who bought it aren't using it much.

My killer apps: iRacing and Elite Dangerous. Absolutely incredible.

There are several very good shorter experiences as well, Lone Echo, Super Hot VR, Robo Recall.

I recently purchased a HTC Vive to use primarily with Elite Dangerous. While not disappointed with it, I am vastly annoyed/amused(?) that due to the so-called screen door effect, my Commander is now as near-sighted as I am in real life. I need to lean toward the control panels to read the text on some of them. This can become very annoying at times. (It makes me feel like I need to put my glasses on, and I'm already wearing them...)

At least with the Rift, this can be solved by:

1. Changing your HUD to green. (Something about there being more green subpixels, so text is clearer in green). Many use EDProfiler, to do this, but you can do it by editing some config files, too.

2. Upping "HMD Quality" in-game to at least 1.25, or higher if your card can handle it. (Leave "supersampling" at 1). 2a. Disable anti-aliasing or set it as low as tolerable. You get some anti-aliasing from HMD Quality anyway.

And of course, make sure your headset is fitted properly with your eyes in the "sweet spot" of the lenses. The tilt, position on your face, and interpupillary distance all matter.

I'm still pretty glad I got my Vive instead of an Oculus, even though the Touch controllers are fantastic. For me it's down to floor-plan; there's no way for me to set up room scale if the cameras need to be plugged into my PC. The lighthouses solve that because all they need is power, and I can do that.

That said, my video card kicked the bucket about 3 months ago, and I haven't been able to replace it due to the prices being jacked too high (also I can't really afford it) so I've been making do with an old Radeon HD 7950 that doesn't really handle VR very well. Alas!

All you need are USB extension cables. Two sensors mounted high and looking down works great for room scale. A third sensor in the back makes it even better.

Nope, extension cables won't really cut it; one of my lighthouses is legit 25 feet from my PC. To use an Oculus I'd have to completely redo my entire living room setup, and I don't feel like doing that when the Vive works fine.

I'm looking to maybe get a VR unit this summer, and terrified of what nightmares I'll have thanks to Subnautica.

I actually didn't particularly care for Subnautica in VR. As a "float around and get horrified at 300m in the dark" thing its great, but its way too fiddly and demanding to actually play in VR in terms of controls and interface.

In regards to the article: a 2% increase seems hardly newsworthy. The survey is hardly inclusive (I know my Vive isn't counted in it as I haven't been prompted for a survey since I picked it up), is analyzing a small set of users, and it can easily be accounted for by "lots of people bought the cheaper unit". All in all, what model people were using would matter a lot less if Occulus wasn't playing money games with the platform and fragmenting the VR ecosystem.

I'm still pretty glad I got my Vive instead of an Oculus, even though the Touch controllers are fantastic. For me it's down to floor-plan; there's no way for me to set up room scale if the cameras need to be plugged into my PC. The lighthouses solve that because all they need is power, and I can do that.

That said, my video card kicked the bucket about 3 months ago, and I haven't been able to replace it due to the prices being jacked too high (also I can't really afford it) so I've been making do with an old Radeon HD 7950 that doesn't really handle VR very well. Alas!

Same here, the room scale system HTC have designed is a lot better than the Occulus Rift system as the latter seems more of a band aid because requiring USB cables round the room is not a very good solution. Furthermore HTC's system appears to be much more forward looking with then working on encouraging companies to produce tracked peripherals for the system and they've worked on improving the VR system with now a new improved headset and improved controllers on the way. Occulur seems stuck with with they started with initially and it's needed massive discounting to regain market.

With regards to females not being able to use VR, I've not seen that in practice at all - I've had a lot of people try out the Vive and none have been nauseous or had any trouble with it. What's noticeable is that those who don't play games at all and can't use normal controllers get on well with the motion tracked controllers as they can use them quite naturally.

I'm looking to maybe get a VR unit this summer, and terrified of what nightmares I'll have thanks to Subnautica.

I actually didn't particularly care for Subnautica in VR. As a "float around and get horrified at 300m in the dark" thing its great, but its way too fiddly and demanding to actually play in VR in terms of controls and interface.

In regards to the article: a 2% increase seems hardly newsworthy. The survey is hardly inclusive (I know my Vive isn't counted in it as I haven't been prompted for a survey since I picked it up), is analyzing a small set of users, and it can easily be accounted for by "lots of people bought the cheaper unit". All what model people were using would matter a lot less if Occulus wasn't playing money games with the platform and fragmenting the VR ecosystem.

It's funny you say that as for some reason, Vive equipped PC never gets flagged for the survey instead it's always my low powered server which I use to download games overnight and then transfer them to the VR PC. So similarly, I don't have a Vive headset officially.